THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND ACQUISITION versus MALLA ATCHINAIDU AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 12-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LAND ACQUISITION 
A 
v. 
MALLA A TCHINAIDU AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Code o/Civil Procedure, 1908-Sections 115 and 152; Order VJJJ Rule 
5-land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1), 6(1) and 17(4)-Award 
granting compensation for land and trees-Reference Court enhancing 
compensation for land and trees-Application by claimants for amendment C 
of decree on ground of typographical mistake in stating less number of trees 
in its order than it actually existed-Application dismissed by the Reference 
Court-Revision Petition and Appeal of the claimants for corrections of the 
mistake and for enhancment of compensation for the land allowed by High 
CourJ-Correctness of-Held, on/acts, it is not a case of typographical error D 
and hence decree nut amenable under sectio I 52 CPC-High Court was not 
right in entertaining the Revision under section I I 5 CPC-High Court was 
right in enhacing the compensation for the land. 
Land Acquisition Officer gave an Award granting compensation of Rs. 
11, 500/- per acre for the land acquired and of Rs. 2,000/- for 176 palm rah E 
trees and 7 cashew trees at the rate of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 5/- and Rs. 50/- for big 
Palmyrah trees, small palmyrah trees and cashew trees respectively under 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Reference Court passed an order enhacing 
the compensation amount to Rs. 55, 000/- per acre f!)r the land and Rs. 100/ 
-, Rs. 50/- and Rs. 200/- for 1000 big Palmyrah trees, 500 small palymrah 
trees and cashew trees respectively. The respondents filed an application F 
before the reference Court under section 152 CPC to amend the order 
contending that there was a typographical error in the order in stating the 
numbe of trees as there existed 10, 000 big palmyrah trees and 4, 500 small 
palmyrah trees on the land acquired. The Court dismissed the application. 
The respondent filed a Revisioa Petition before High Court against the 
dismissal of the application by the reference Court. The respondents also filed 
an appeal against the order of the reference court for enhancement of 
compensation. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Reivsion Petition 
and directed the reference Court to amend the order. Appellant filed an appeal 
G 
885 
II 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A before High Court against the order of the Single Judge. The High Court, by 
a common judgment, allowed the appeal of the respondents enhancing the 
compensation of the land to Rs. 1, 50,00/- per acre and dismissed the appeal 
of the appellant. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court erred 
B in enhancing Compensation amount for the land by relying on a sale deed of 
small area of land; that the reference Court has no powr to groat compensation 
to the trees separately; that the respondents did not raise any dispute about 
the number of trees before the reference Court and in appeal before High 
Cour; that no evidence was produced as to the existence of 10, 000/- big 
C palmyrah trees and 4,500 small palmyarh trees on the acquired land; that in 
the written arguments, submitted to the Court and to the appellant at the time 
of hearing, there was no claim of more number of trees than the one noted in 
the Award; that the original claim statement and the written arguments were 
clandestinely tampered by the respondents subsequent to the disposal of the 
reference showing 10,000 big palmyrah trees, and 4,500 small palmyrah trees 
D which was confirmed C.B.C.l.D after investigation; that the facts are admitted 
by the rule of non-traverse stated in Order 8 Rule 5 CPC; that the High Court 
erred in entertaining the Revision petition of the respondent despite bringing 
to notice that the Division Bench of the Hgh Court had already seized of the 
matter in appeal by the respondents; that the High Court exceeded its 
E jurisdiction in ordering consequential amendment of decree to apply enhanc~d 
tree value for 10,000 big and 4,500 small trees; and that the extent of the 
land acquired could not cover and hold such number of trees. 
The respondents raised a preliminary objection contending that the 
appellant cannot raise plea for the first time before this Court that trees are 
p not to be valued separately. The respondents fruther contended tht the 
compensatin amount cannot be lower than that awarded by the Land Acquisition 
Officer; that they had mentioned in their claim petition 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.